Should Andrew Flintoff be selected for the New Zealand Test series?

Dodgy ankles, pedaloes and booze have filled the headlines over the past couple of years whenever Andrew Flintoff's name has been mentioned. But with the first Test against New Zealand only a week away, the selectors have a slightly more pressing concern: form.

Freddie lasted one ball in his innings for Lancashire against Durham yesterday - his second golden duck in consecutive matches. This fact is not lost on Michael Atherton who, in today's column, writes: "Since the Ashes series of 2005, Andrew Flintoff has played 14 Test matches and he hasn’t scored a hundred or taken a five-for. He has played a further eleven first-class matches (before yesterday's game at Old Trafford) and again hasn’t scored a hundred or taken a five-for."

Atherton declares: "For his own sake, and for the good of the team, he shouldn’t be picked."

Ah, but Athers hasn't had to face him. Here's what a few that have have said:

Stuart Law, Flintoff’s county captain: "If you think you can leave him out of any England side when he’s fit, you’re kidding yourself"

Justin Langer: "Flintoff could bat at number 11 if it meant playing him. He must play in England’s first eleven"

Marcus Trescothick: "bowling-wise he’s as ready as he’ll ever be. He’s ready to go"

But is he? Are we Englanders living in a hazy fog where Flintoff is still the same player of three years ago? Are we that badly off for players that a man with no form and a suspect foot is our only choice?

Or is his bowling ability alone worth a gamble? Has he done enough with the ball recently to merit a chance, knowing that time at the crease will allow his batting to come up to scratch?

What do you think: should Flintoff be selected for the New Zealand Test series? Vote now and leave your comments below.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Comments

[Political Umpire]

Trouble is Flintoff is a good shock bowler, but the last time he chose to be a stock bowler (v SL at Lord's) it knocked him out for over a year. Thus it would be very risky taking him as one of only four bowlers. Unless they bring back Prior, whose record suggests he could justify a place at no. 6 (though his keeping's dodgy), that leaves no real place for Fred. Yet.

[Steve]

Just imagine: England's top six as it currently is, Ambrose at 7, Flintoff 8, Broad 9, Sidebottom 10, Panesar 11. That has an experienced and improving top order, good potential from the keeper, a tail that will add 100, superb penetration from pace and swing, and a genuine match-winning spinner. Of course, they all have to play up to their potential, but the best that the selectors can do is give that potential a chance.

[Rodney Barker]

Those who have played with him and against Flintoft lately are surely the best judges as to his fitness and capability. I agree with the comments above concerning his batting at this stage, but he could bat down the order. So far as England batting is concerned are there one or two others who need to be deeply concerned about their form and capability - Vaughan?

[Christine]

Alas, we need a bowler who can bat. We also need batsmen who get runs, lots of them. We also need cricketers who are in good, strong physical, mental and emotional shape. Wherefor art thou?

[Peter McGuinness]

Yes he's going beautifully.

Beautifully.

His ankle is perfect and should last him forever. Likewise, Bell is an ironman. Persist with the current openers too. Harmy should also receive full consideration ahead of next year's Ashes.

Thank you.

[Norman West]

I really feel he should get some more time testing his ankle and at the crease before being selected for a test.

Broad and Sidebottom are excellent strike bowlers, in Broads case young and raring to go, and with Sidebottom proving a point.

We must look to the future and the future will be when Flintoff has proved himself again - not just yet.

[Patters]

Why does he need to score runs? He is a brilliant, world class bowler not an all rounder.

[msfj]

Yes, Fred should play. As an England fan I would like to see him play for as many more years as possible so I CAN understand the argument for preserving him if he is not ready. No body wants to see him return too early and then be out of the game again. But if Fred thinks he is ready and his county opponents believe he is ready then he should be given the chance to play. I agree with Justin Langer - he could be in the team if he batted at no. 11 so lack of runs should not come into the equation. Getting decent scores is the job for the specialist batsmen and anything a bowler can give you is a bonus. How many runs have Michael Vaughan and his top order batsmen scored this county season so far? They are the people whose batting records we should be interested in. I'm disappointed in Athers for mentioning the World Cup events again - anyone with a genuine interest in Andrew Flintoff's career would leave that in the past. I was in St Lucia at the time and was surprised at how much fuss was made both then and throughout last summer. It appears that there are many double standards within the England Cricket team and the treatment of Fred over that matter is definitely one of them. Bring him back and let him enjoy playing for his country again and let the fans enjoy watching.

[Martin]

I'd take the comments of Flintoff's fellow pros with a pinch of salt. For example, I remember many of them tipping England to retain the Ashes. I'm with Athers on this, the England team should be a meritocracy, and others have a better claim. Runs and wickets please Andrew. Runs and wickets.

[Dominic O'Reilly]

The key with his ankle should be managing it and using him as a strike bowler.
If he can bowl for Lancs, he can bowl for England but no long spells.
I agree about the batting, he's good enough to get in as a bowler so the runs should be a bonus.

[Darren]

It has been said before, Glenn McGrath never had to score runs to get into the Australian team, neither did Courtney Walsh for the Windies. He is our most consistent bowler, and our most effective strike bowler, when fit. Those who play with and against him say he is fit. He should play.